Re: [CCAMP] Harmonizing draft-ietf-ccamp-yang-otn-slicing and draft-ietf-teas-applicability-actn-slicing

[[e-mail]]

Hi All, 

 

It seems there was no strong opinion on the question:

 

"Do we need to define a requirement for a new xMI interface at the NBI of
the MDSC in the draft-ietf-teas-applicability-actn-slicing I-D." 

 

We would love to have some feedback from non-authors of
draft-ietf-ccamp-yang-otn-slicing and
draft-ietf-teas-applicability-actn-slicing. 

 

BR, Dan. 

 

From: Italo Busi <[e-mail]> 
Sent: 16 May 2022 12:33
To: TEAS WG <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; Daniele Ceccarelli <[e-mail]>;
'[e-mail]' <[e-mail]>; Belotti, Sergio (Nokia - IT)
<[e-mail]>
Subject: Harmonizing draft-ietf-ccamp-yang-otn-slicing and
draft-ietf-teas-applicability-actn-slicing

 

As reported during IETF 113 presentations, we have discussed the mapping
between the IETF NSC and the ACTN functional component in
draft-ietf-teas-applicability-actn-slicing and think that the mapping needs
to be updated to reflect the fact that:

*	there is a difference between the customer being defined in ACTN
framework and the consumer being defined in the IETF network slicing
framework
*	the MDSC contains both service related functions (Service
Orchestrator functions as defined in RFC8309) and network related functions
(Network Orchestrator functions as defined in RFC8309) which can be
split/combined on different systems

 

We think that there is the need to define a new xMI interface at the NBI of
the MDSC to address the scenarios where the MDSC is split between SO and NO
functions (see section 4.2 of [RFC8453]).

 

In attachment you can find proposed updates to the figures in
draft-ietf-teas-applicability-actn-slicing-01.

 

If the proposal is acceptable, the authors can update the figures and the
text of the draft accordingly.

 

Daniel, Daniele, Italo and Sergio